That is how I find the New York Pravda’s review of “The Passion.” The review writes:
By rubbing our faces in the grisly reality of Jesus’ death and fixing our eyes on every welt and gash on his body, this film means to make literal an event that the Gospels often treat with circumspection and that tends to be thought about somewhat abstractly. Look, the movie seems to insist, when we say he died for our sins, this is what we mean.
Well, that is what Mel was trying to do. Because so many people often treat this event not as something that happened, but as something abstract, we forget what burden Christ carried for us. By treating the crucifixtion as an abstraction, we open ourselves up to the touchy-feely religious notions that permeate other movies on the same topic.
On, there is from the review too:
On its own, apart from whatever beliefs a viewer might bring to it, “The Passion of the Christ” never provides a clear sense of what all of this bloodshed was for, an inconclusiveness that is Mr. Gibson’s most serious artistic failure. The Gospels, at least in some interpretations, suggest that the story ends in forgiveness. But such an ending seems beyond Mr. Gibson’s imaginative capacities. Perhaps he suspects that his public prefers terror, fury and gore. Maybe Homer Simpson was right after all.
I don’t even know where to begin in responding to that. I guess the first place is that this review may answer the question about non-believers liking the movie. In this case, the reviewer didn’t get it. Those of us who know the story understand what “all of this bloodshed was for.” And don’t you just love how the reviewer says “at least in some interpretations” the Gospels end in forgiveness.
But of course you and I know that the forgiveness part of the story and the conclusion is not yet fully written. Maybe someone should have clued in the reviewer.
I stand by my earlier comment — Pravda would like it better if Hollywood editors got to re-write the ending to better fit their sensibilities.